On 5/31/2023 1:53 AM, Sudeep Holla wrote: > On Tue, May 30, 2023 at 03:42:45PM -0700, Florian Fainelli wrote: >> Hi Conor, >> >> On 5/30/23 14:39, Conor Dooley wrote: >>> Yo Florian, >>> >>> On Tue, May 30, 2023 at 01:19:55PM -0700, Florian Fainelli wrote: >>>> From: Pierre Gondois >>>> >>>> commit 3522340199cc060b70f0094e3039bdb43c3f6ee1 upstream >>>> >>>> fetch_cache_info() tries to get the number of cache leaves/levels >>>> for each CPU in order to pre-allocate memory for cacheinfo struct. >>>> Allocating this memory later triggers a: >>>> 'BUG: sleeping function called from invalid context' >>>> in PREEMPT_RT kernels. >>>> >>>> If there is no cache related information available in DT or ACPI, >>>> fetch_cache_info() fails and an error message is printed: >>>> 'Early cacheinfo failed, ret = ...' >>>> >>>> Not having cache information should be a valid configuration. >>>> Remove the error message if fetch_cache_info() fails with -ENOENT. >>>> >>>> Suggested-by: Conor Dooley >>>> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/all/20230404-hatred-swimmer-6fecdf33b57a@spud/ >>>> Signed-off-by: Pierre Gondois >>>> Reviewed-by: Conor Dooley >>>> Link: https://lore.kernel.org/r/20230414081453.244787-4-pierre.gondois@arm.com >>>> Signed-off-by: Sudeep Holla >>>> Signed-off-by: Florian Fainelli >>> >>> How come this now needs a backport? Did the rest of the series get >>> backported, but not this one since it has no fixes tag? >> >> Humm, indeed, this has been present in v6.3.2 since I requested it to be >> included. The error that I saw this morning was not -ENOENT, but -EINVAL. >> >> With those patches applied, no more -EINVAL: >> >> cacheinfo: Allow early level detection when DT/ACPI info is missing/broken >> cacheinfo: Add arm64 early level initializer implementation >> cacheinfo: Add arch specific early level initializer >> cacheinfo: Add use_arch[|_cache]_info field/function >> >> I will submit those shortly unless we think they better not be in 6.3, in >> which case it would be nice to silence those -EINVAL errors. > > I prefer this option instead of back porting all the above 4 as there are > some pending fixes for the issues found in those patches. I am fine if Greg > is happy with the backport, so no strong rejection from my side :). OK, so are you suggesting that we specific check for -EINVAL and -ENOENT rather than take all of the 4 above patches, if so, any preference on how to do it given the state of 6.3 stable? -- Florian